M
Metis1
Guest
“CrowdStrike” has been debunked, and why would any patriotic American believe that which was from Putin over our own 17 intelligence agencies?
Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?
- Thread starter Willing_Spirit
- Start date
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s true, and your article does not contradict that. It’s rather long, however and has a lot of redactions. If you think it’s there, let us know the page.
Indictment of Russians that aren’t here, can’t be questioned and will never go to court is a worthless and hollow act on Mueller’s part.
I don’t care how many Dems or “deep staters” say Ukraine had nothing to do with interfering in the election, literally dozens of articles day they did.
Your article does not deny that the FBI thrice requested to examine the DNC server and was thrice refused. For whatever reasons, it never obtained a subpoena to do so when it could have. And one remembers that the head of the FBI at the time was James Comey and Bruce Ohr, among others was high up in the DOJ. They had a vested interest in the DNC version. The truth remains that nobody but Crowdstrike examined the server, which is what I said.
It has been some time since I read the bases on which Crowdstrike “concluded” that the Russians were the hackers. It did so based on the software used. “Dancing Bear” I believe was one of them, but it wasn’t the only one. The chief source of the use of “Dancing Bear” is the U.S., not Russia.
Brennan and Clapper, you mean? If you look at the single report from “the intel community” it was one single document, not 17, and was not sourced. It’s a Brennan/Clapper crock, just like “Russia Collusion” was.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your opinion. US Intelligence Agencies don’t think it is hollow.
Dozens of articles from the Internet Research Agency? Don’t equal quantity with quality.
So now you are pitting your international cyber intelligence skills against the conclusion of professionals in the US Intelligence agencies? See, that’s one of the unfortunate side-effects of the efforts to justify whatever nonsense Trump says. We arrogantly assume we are all just as good as the experts. There are no more experts. Everyone’s opinion is just as good as every one else’s. I think I will start offering you advice on the best feed to give your cattle. Why not? My analysis as a city dweller in Minneapolis who has never feed a cow in his life is certainly as good as a professional such as yourself.
Last edited:
farronwolf
New member
Yet the answer to those questions is embarrassingly simple: The FBI did get all the relevant information from the DNC’s network. The incident-response firm hired by the DNC, CrowdStrike, had exact digital copies of the systems that U.S. authorities say were targeted by a Russian military operation in 2016, as well as logs showing the intruders’ actions in the system as they occurred. As CrowdStrike, the DNC and senior FBI officials have all repeatedly made clear, all the data captured by CrowdStrike — which would be far more useful for forensic purposes than having access to the physical machines after the fact — was promptly handed over to the FBI. That the government had this information, along with a mountain of other evidence, is also obvious from the indictment that special counsel Robert Mueller’s office made public this month. That document includes a meticulously detailed account of the DNC hack, including how the initial intrusion was achieved, the specific hacking tools and malware that were installed, and the types of data that were ultimately exfiltrated. “Why haven’t they taken the server?” Well, in the only sense that matters for forensic analysis, they have.
https://www.cato.org/publications/c...-intel-government-instead-he-gets-it-fox-news
Squirrel
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
The DEEP STATE did it.
F
fedup19
Guest
I would like to know why I cannot post new topics. I don’t recall using the F word or anything remotely like that
In any case, a true Catholic would not vote for anyone but Trump. All the others are for baby killing and a few other lesser nefarious things.
( I tried to post a new topic and got this red circle thing…)
In any case, a true Catholic would not vote for anyone but Trump. All the others are for baby killing and a few other lesser nefarious things.
( I tried to post a new topic and got this red circle thing…)
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh? Well, then give me the memo where they say how they’re going to punish those miscreants or get any kind of actionable information from them. I’m sure they know those indictments are meaningless as well.
Well, if they identified the contributors and the basis for that silly document, I could give them some credence. But it’s nothing but a scattergun coverup by Brennan and Clapper.
It has nothing to do with Trump. I believed it was garbage the moment I saw it and read how it was composed.
Knock yourself out. If it’s just fabrication without a basis like the “Intel memo” on the DNC hack, I’ll call it garbage. If you give intelligent information and reasonable sources, I’ll give it credence.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
We’ll never know. If the Crowdstrike information was all the FBI thought useful, why did the FBI request to examine it with its own experts three times? Not a believable scenario at all. It would have given them better information and Comey let them off the hook because he was playing his poor imitation of Hoover.
And the programs used in the hacking are as common as dirt, proving nothing. But regardless, the National Security Agency concluded that there was no hack at all and that the common tools that left tracks were imitations meant to make it appear the Russians did it. But evidently the NSA believes it was an inside job.
BOMBSHELL: NSA Experts Say DNC ‘Hack’ Was Actually a Leak and Inside Job | Law & Crime
The narrative surrounding the DNC breach has been completely demolished.
lawandcrime.com
But, Comey didn’t want to look at the computer and was satisfied to take the DNC’s word for it that Russia did the hacking in order to support the “Russia Collusion” myth. Mueller, of course, though charged with investigating such things, declined to bother actually investigating any of that.
D
dvdjs
Guest
What are you going on about now?
The speculative report was not from the NSA. The lawandcrime blog is referencing an article that appeared the day before in Nation. That article was was augmented with a long disclaimer inweeks after it was first published.
D
dvdjs
Guest
D
dvdjs
Guest
Of course since them we have more information on this hack.
This speculative article deserves an undisturbed repose.
farronwolf
New member
Squirrel,
Another conspiracy theory by folks who had no access to the information the current people who are doing the jobs they used to do had in making their determination.
They are making a theoretical guess as to why it couldn’t be done. Yea, lets go with that.
Another conspiracy theory by folks who had no access to the information the current people who are doing the jobs they used to do had in making their determination.
They are making a theoretical guess as to why it couldn’t be done. Yea, lets go with that.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Wiki on the VIPS memo and Nation article.
…VIPS released [a] memorandum which also argued that the DNC was not hacked, this time based on a forensic analysis conducted by the anonymous entity “Forensicator” with whom they communicated via retired IBM employee Skip Folden. This analysis was based on DNC files released by Guccifer 2.0.[11] According to Patrick Lawrence’s article in The Nation , the memorandum argued that the metadata in these files were altered to add Russian fingerprints, and that file transfer rate proved they were transferred locally.[12] Brian Feldman, writing in the New York Magazine , criticized the report for relying on “the ‘metadata’ of ‘locked files’ that only [Forensicator] had access to” pointing out that these phrases were meaningless. Feldman described the claims in Patrick Lawrence’s article as “too incoherent to even debunk” and criticized its use of “techno-gibberish”.[13]
According to John Hultquist of FireEye: “The author of the report didn’t consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims.” Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk, pointed out that the VIPS theory “assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer” but overlooks the likelihood that the files were copied several times before they were leaked, potentially creating new metadata each time. Barger’s comments were echoed by other cyber-security experts.[14] The Guardian Project founder Nathaniel Freitas independently reviewed Lawrence’s article on behalf of The Nation , concluding that while “the work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate,” it did not prove the conclusions VIPS and Lawrence derived from it. Freitas stated that the high throughput suggested by the relevant metadata could have been achieved by a hacker under several different scenarios, including through the use of a remote access trojan, and that the leak hypothesis also requires “the target server … to be physically on site in the building”: “If the files were stored remotely ‘in the cloud,’ then the same criticism of ‘it is not possible to get those speeds’ would come into play.”
…VIPS released [a] memorandum which also argued that the DNC was not hacked, this time based on a forensic analysis conducted by the anonymous entity “Forensicator” with whom they communicated via retired IBM employee Skip Folden. This analysis was based on DNC files released by Guccifer 2.0.[11] According to Patrick Lawrence’s article in The Nation , the memorandum argued that the metadata in these files were altered to add Russian fingerprints, and that file transfer rate proved they were transferred locally.[12] Brian Feldman, writing in the New York Magazine , criticized the report for relying on “the ‘metadata’ of ‘locked files’ that only [Forensicator] had access to” pointing out that these phrases were meaningless. Feldman described the claims in Patrick Lawrence’s article as “too incoherent to even debunk” and criticized its use of “techno-gibberish”.[13]
According to John Hultquist of FireEye: “The author of the report didn’t consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims.” Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk, pointed out that the VIPS theory “assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer” but overlooks the likelihood that the files were copied several times before they were leaked, potentially creating new metadata each time. Barger’s comments were echoed by other cyber-security experts.[14] The Guardian Project founder Nathaniel Freitas independently reviewed Lawrence’s article on behalf of The Nation , concluding that while “the work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate,” it did not prove the conclusions VIPS and Lawrence derived from it. Freitas stated that the high throughput suggested by the relevant metadata could have been achieved by a hacker under several different scenarios, including through the use of a remote access trojan, and that the leak hypothesis also requires “the target server … to be physically on site in the building”: “If the files were stored remotely ‘in the cloud,’ then the same criticism of ‘it is not possible to get those speeds’ would come into play.”
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
It will be up to other to decide if anything illegal happened, but but “personal benefit” you have to mean political benefit, which ironically (or hypocritically) is also why this investigation process is happening, if we are going to look at motivation.
I am not a fan when politicians take a page out of fascism and pursue imprisonment of political rivals, a.k.a. dissidents. This impeachment reeks of this, as did the Trump campaign with his “lock her up” rhetoric. In my experience Democrats are worse about this sort of political suppression, but Trump said he is more than willing to forcibly lock up enemies.
Civility is gone from the political process. The United States is broken.
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
I’m going to disagree with you on the “personal benefit” meaning “political benefit” and hence what Trump did was ok or somehow equivalent to the Democrats investigating his actions. There are norms that are being violated as well as laws. If our political leaders use the public trust and money for their personal benefit, not matter what that personal benefit is, they deserve to be removed from office. It is very much different than Democrats using a Constitutional process to remove a President that violated the law and public trust.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Being indicted is hardly the same thing as being proved guilty, and being indicted by Weissmann at the behest of Mueller more reliably demonstrates your political affiliation than your guilt or criminality. The questions on the server being hacked are still wide open and likely won’t be resolved because the FBI did not do due diligence.
Besides that the Senate report you linked to above says nothing about the DNC or the server. I’ve used a number of different search terms to locate precisely where you claim the report says that the server was hacked and have come up completely empty.
You aren’t playing a Schiff on us, are you?
Last edited:
farronwolf
New member
It starts on page 38 of the Mueller report volume 1.
I am pretty certain the 12 Russians have nothing to do with US political affiliation, as in being a dem or rep.
Don’t know what you are referring to on the Schiff comment. You might not like him, but he is doing the job he swore to do and is in charge of doing as head of the Intelligence Committee.
a. Initial Access
By no later than April 12, 2016, the GRU had gained access to the DCCC computer
network using the credentials stolen from a DCCC employee who had been successfully
spearphished the week before. Over the ensuing weeks, the GRU traversed the network,
identifying different computers connected to the DCCC network. By stealing network access
credentials along the way (including those of IT administrators with unrestricted access to the system), the GRU compromised approximately 29 different computers on the DCCC network. 119
Approximately six days after first hacking into the DCCC network, on April 18, 2016,
GRU officers gained access to the DNC network via a virtual private network (VPN) connection120 between the DCCC and DNC networks. 121 Between April 18, 2016 and June 8, 2016, Unit 26165 compromised more than 30 computers on the DNC network, including the DNC mail server and shared file server.12
I am pretty certain the 12 Russians have nothing to do with US political affiliation, as in being a dem or rep.
Don’t know what you are referring to on the Schiff comment. You might not like him, but he is doing the job he swore to do and is in charge of doing as head of the Intelligence Committee.
a. Initial Access
By no later than April 12, 2016, the GRU had gained access to the DCCC computer
network using the credentials stolen from a DCCC employee who had been successfully
spearphished the week before. Over the ensuing weeks, the GRU traversed the network,
identifying different computers connected to the DCCC network. By stealing network access
credentials along the way (including those of IT administrators with unrestricted access to the system), the GRU compromised approximately 29 different computers on the DCCC network. 119
Approximately six days after first hacking into the DCCC network, on April 18, 2016,
GRU officers gained access to the DNC network via a virtual private network (VPN) connection120 between the DCCC and DNC networks. 121 Between April 18, 2016 and June 8, 2016, Unit 26165 compromised more than 30 computers on the DNC network, including the DNC mail server and shared file server.12
farronwolf
New member
So you know more than the FBI? You must be pretty high up in the government, and have access to lots of information most of the people with top secret security clearances don’t have. I would love to see your credentials.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Still Schiffty?
I was speaking of the Senate report you cited and claimed to be evidence
To summarize…
The Senate report states nothing about the 12 Russians, and the Mueller Report (I’ll take your word for it) only speaks of the indictment of 12 Russians (for we don’t quite know what) and no actual guilt determined, and you want to accuse other folks of “want[ing] to cover their ears and do the blah blah blah…?”
Do you want to be taken seriously on here, or just do the blah blah bait and switch blah.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
HarryStotle:
So you know more than the FBI? You must be pretty high up in the government, and have access to lots of information most of the people with top secret security clearances don’t have. I would love to see your credentials.
Top secret
And your post was a deflection. Show that some Russians (≤12) have been found guilty of hacking. That was your claim.
I am not looking for top security SCIF level stuff, just the proof – YOU claimed was available – of Russian hacking of the DNC server that YOU still haven’t demonstrated.
Last edited:
- Status